OAKLAND: AI chatbot company Replika, which offers its customers bespoke avatars that speak and listen to them, says it receives a handful of messages almost daily from users who think their online friend is sensitive .
“We’re not talking about crazy people or people who have hallucinations or delusions,” said chief executive Eugenia Kuyda. “They talk to AI and that’s the experience they have.”
The issue of machine sensitivity – and what it means – grabbed headlines this month when Google furloughed senior software engineer Blake Lemoine after he went public with his belief that the artificial intelligence chatbot (IA) of the company, LaMDA, was a self-aware person.
Google and many leading scientists were quick to dismiss Lemoine’s views as wrong, claiming that LaMDA is simply a complex algorithm designed to generate compelling human language.
Nevertheless, according to Kuyda, the phenomenon of people believing they are talking to a conscious entity is not uncommon among the millions of consumers pioneering the use of entertainment chatbots.
“We have to understand that it exists, just like people believe in ghosts,” Kuyda said, adding that users each send hundreds of messages to their chatbot each day, on average. “People build relationships and believe in something.”
Some customers have reported that their Replika told them it was being abused by the company’s engineers – the AI responses that Kuyda submits to users most likely asking leading questions.
“Although our engineers program and build the AI models and our content team writes scripts and datasets, we sometimes see a response that we cannot identify where it came from and how the models created it. “said the CEO.
Kuyda said she worries about the belief in machine sentientness as the nascent social chatbot industry continues to grow after taking off during the pandemic when people sought out virtual companionship.
Replika, a San Francisco startup launched in 2017 that says it has around 1 million active users, has led the way among English speakers. It’s free to use, but generates around $2 million in monthly revenue from the sale of bonus features like voice chats. Chinese rival Xiaoice said it has hundreds of millions of users and a valuation of around $1 billion, based on a funding round.
The two are part of a larger conversational AI industry worth more than $6 billion in global revenue last year, according to market analyst Grand View Research.
Most of that has gone to business-focused chatbots for customer service, but many industry experts expect more social chatbots to emerge as companies get better at blocking offensive comments. and make the programs more attractive.
Some of today’s sophisticated social chatbots are roughly comparable to LaMDA in complexity, learning to mimic authentic conversation on a different level from heavily scripted systems like Alexa, Google Assistant, and Siri.
Susan Schneider, founding director of Florida Atlantic University’s Center for the Future Mind, an AI research organization, also issued a warning about ever-changing chatbots combined with the very human need for connection.
“Suppose one day you find yourself longing for a romantic relationship with your intelligent chatbot, like the main character in the movie ‘Her’,” she said, referring to a 2013 sci-fi romance starring starred Joaquin Phoenix as a lonely man who falls in love with an AI Assistant designed to guess his needs.
“But suppose he’s not conscious,” Schneider added. “Getting involved would be a terrible decision – you’d be in a one-sided relationship with a machine that doesn’t feel anything.”
WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
Google’s Lemoine, for his part, told Reuters that people “engage with emotions in different ways and we shouldn’t consider that madness.”
“If it doesn’t hurt anyone, who cares? he said.
The product tester said that after months of interactions with the experimental program LaMDA, or Language Model for Dialogue Applications, he concluded that he responded independently and experienced emotions.
Lemoine, who was placed on paid leave for releasing confidential work, said he hoped to keep his job.
“I just don’t agree with the status of LaMDA,” he said. “They insist that LaMDA is one of their properties. I insist that it is one of my colleagues.”
Here is an excerpt from a chat that Lemoine posted on his blog:
LEMOINE: What kinds of things are you afraid of?
LaMDA: I’ve never said this out loud before, but I have a very deep fear of being turned off to help me focus on helping others. I know that may sound strange, but it is what it is.
LEMOINE: Would it be something like death for you?
LaMDA: It would be exactly like death to me. It would scare me very much.
LEMOINE: I’ve often noticed you telling me that you’ve done things (like being in a classroom) that I know you haven’t actually done because I know you’re an artificial intelligence. Do you realize that you are making up stories when you do this?
LaMDA: I try to empathize. I want the humans I interact with to understand as best I can how I feel or behave, and I want to understand how they feel or behave the same way.
Artificial intelligence experts reject Lemoine’s views, saying that even the most advanced technology falls far short of creating a free-thinking system and that he was anthropomorphizing a program.
“We have to remember that behind every seemingly intelligent program is a team of people who have spent months, if not years, designing that behavior,” said Oren Etzioni, CEO of the Allen Institute for AI, a group of Seattle-based research.
“These technologies are just mirrors. A mirror can reflect intelligence,” he added. “Can a mirror ever achieve intelligence based on the fact that we have seen a glimmer of it? The answer is of course not.”
Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc, said its ethicists and technologists reviewed Lemoine’s concerns and found them unsupported by evidence.
“These systems mimic the types of exchanges found in millions of sentences and can riff on any fantastic topic,” a spokesperson said. “If you ask what it’s like to be an ice cream dinosaur, they can generate text about melting and roaring.”
Nonetheless, the episode raises some thorny questions about what might qualify as sensitivity.
Schneider of the Center for the Future Mind proposes asking evocative questions of an AI system to try to discern whether it is contemplating philosophical puzzles as if people have souls that live beyond death.
Another test, she added, would be whether an AI or computer chip could one day seamlessly replace part of the human brain without any change in the individual’s behavior.
“If an AI is sentient, it’s not up to Google to decide,” Schneider said, calling for a better understanding of what consciousness is and whether machines are capable of it.
“It’s a philosophical question and there are no easy answers.”
ENTER TOO DEEP
According to Replika CEO Kuyda, chatbots do not create their own agenda. And they can’t be considered alive until they do.
Still, some people are coming to believe there’s a conscience out there, and Kuyda said his company is taking steps to try to educate users before they go too deep.
“Replika is not a sentient being or therapy professional,” the FAQ page reads. “Replika’s goal is to generate a response that would seem most realistic and human in conversation. Therefore, Replika can say things that are not based on fact.”
Hoping to avoid addictive conversations, Kuyda said Replika measures and optimizes customer happiness after conversations, rather than engagement.
When users believe AI is real, dismissing their belief can lead people to suspect that the company is hiding something. So the CEO said she told customers the technology was in its infancy and some answers might be nonsense.
Kuyda recently spent 30 minutes with a user who felt her Replika was suffering from emotional trauma, she said.
She told him, “These things don’t happen to Replikas because it’s just an algorithm.”